Paper Abstracts
Less feminine means less polite? The use of male-preferred form sugee in
complimenting by young Japanese females
Chie Adachi, University of Edinburgh, U.K.
The paper explores the relationship between rudeness/impoliteness and gender through the
speech act of complimenting in Japanese. Complimenting is a speech act that is gendered and
also greatly related to politeness issues (Holmes 1995). As Holmes puts it, complimenting is
a linguistic device that expresses politeness, especially attending positive face wants.
In Japanese complimenting, a number of compliments are found to be marked with positively
evaluated term, sugoi, meaning amazing, something beyond ordinary. Furthermore, there is
a variant that derives from this standard form sugoi, namely sugee. Drawing on a corpus
consisting of approximately 40 hours of recorded conversations that I collected from the
Japanese university students in 2008, I show that out of 154 compliment events, 44
compliments were marked with these terms, which accounts for 28.6% of the entire corpus.
The discussion will focus on the frequent use of sugee by females. This form sugee is
considered to be less feminine, less formal and rough, and is usually associated with
masculine speech. However, 6 tokens of sugee out of a total of 11 were uttered by female
students. Considering that this form is originally a male-preferred form, the fact that half of
the tokens were uttered by women is striking.
My analysis of the use of sugee investigates 1) why young females choose such linguistic
marker that indicates masculinity, 2) whether this is a linguistic and social change that the
young generations recently started to lead and 3) young Japanese females attitudes towards
the use of this particular form, given that there is an indirect association that the masculine
speech is rough and hence rude. This paper is a contribution to the research of politeness and
gender adding a new case study of Japanese young adolescents.
The acquisition of discourse markers in L2 environments: avoiding impoliteness
Carolina P. Amador Moreno and Mara Isabel Rodrguez Ponce, University of Extremadura,
Spain
Recent studies have concentrated on the importance of pragmatic differences across
languages. Throughout the last decade significant progress has been made in analysing the
role of pragmatic markers in conversation. However, the acquisition of pragmatic resources
in relation to foreign language performance has to-date received little attention. In clasroom
contexts, this is often due to the fact that, when compared with grammar and pronunciation
aspects, teachers consider that pragmatic issues are less important and can be learned
intuitively (Bardovi-Harlig & Drnyei 1998). However, as pointed out by Barron (2003), the
command of pragmatic strategies in an L2 is a clear indication of fluency. In that sense, the
analysis of discourse markers (DMs) in spoken interaction can be indicative of a learners
communicative competence.
This paper investigates the use of discourse marker oye by English-speaking advanced
learners of Spanish. Among the functions that this particular DM has in Spanish, our study
has focussed on turn-initial uses, which are employed to call the listeners attention. Our data
has been gathered through a questionnaire which follows the method employed by Blum-
intentional FTAs are verbal acts that are knowingly (and often maliciously) undertaken
in order to cause (maximum) face damage;
incidental FTAs are unplanned by-products of a given interaction;
accidental FTAs are unintended and unwitting acts performed innocently, but which
nevertheless cause offence to the hearer.
In this paper, I suggest an approach that would allow us to capture all of Goffmans FTAtypes. My approach incorporates an intentionality scale (cf. Mills 2003), which complements
whilst allowing for movement between Goffmans (1967) intentional and incidental FTAtypes via the addition of an indeterminate-to-intent zone.
My new indeterminate zone is particularly useful when investigating (professional)
interaction involving verbal duelling (i.e. the kinds of interaction that occur in the courtroom,
board meeting, business negotiation, mediation session, etc.). For example, lawyers often
have multiple goals (Penman 1990): their primary goal might be to have a coherent story that
accounts for and/or discounts (non-)relevant evidence; their subsidiary goal might be a
perceived need to discredit (previous testimony given by) a non-friendly witness. As part of
my presentation, I will show how lawyers utilise such multiple goals in ways that deliberately
problematise any perceived intent to harm: that is to say, determining whether any resulting
FTA is intentional or an unplanned by product of a given interaction becomes difficult.
Indeed, I will suggest that they seem to be strategically manipulating multiple goals in ways
that allow for a level of plausible deniability (see Leech 1983).
References
Bousfield, D. (2008) Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Culpeper, J. (1996) Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 349367.
Culpeper, J. (2005) Impoliteness and The Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1):
35-72.
Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield and A. Wichmann (2003) Impoliteness revisited: with special
reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10-11): 15451579.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. Garden City, NY:
Anchor Books.
Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Mills, S. (2003) Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Penman, R. (1990) Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. In: K.
Tracy and N. Coupland (eds.) Multiple Goals in Discourse. Clevedon, PA: Multilingual
Matters, pp. 15-37.
....... ...
agreeable
POLITIC
... ........
EXCEEDINGLY POLITE
:
. :
The reported communication in English is the one that the speaker A intended to say, but he
was misunderstood as impolite because the use of the expression " " is considered in
speaker's A speech community as insult. Speaker A is from the city of Annaba, which is a
speech community far from the one of speaker B with about 270 km. Speaker A thought to be
insulted by speaker A and refuses any talk with him while speaker A has just answered in a
very polite way as he used to do in his speech community (i.e. Batna).
The problem of the impolite expression " " is not I the production but in the reception
because any speaker uses a variety that he knows without readjusting his speech to the other
participant's variety. It is thus the reception of the "impolite item" that makes the hearer feel
the item as a whole impolite.
The present paper deals with linguistic impoliteness as being a matter of reception in
dialectical speech communities. It uses a variety of illustrations to show how and when
linguistic usages sound very polite in a speech community and do not do so in another.
Verbal aggression and impoliteness in Spanish talk shows
Mara Bernal, Stockholm University, Sweden
Leech (1983: 103) states that conflictive illocutions tend, thankfully, to be rather marginal to
human linguistic behaviour in normal circumstances. However, the presence of conflict
situations in everyday interactions is undeniable. In the last years there seems to be in Spain
an increasing success in those television programmes in which impoliteness and verbal
aggression are very recurrent. We refer to the so-called exploitative chat shows (Culpeper
2005), in which the participants (most of the time celebrities) embark on heated
confrontational interactions characterised by a high degree of impoliteness and humiliations
for the sake of entertainment. Talk shows constitute a particular interaction genre
characterized as semi-institutional due to both institutional and conversational features (Ilie
2001; Hernndez Flores 2008). Previous research on Spanish TV-debates and entertainment
programmes focuses on facework and (im)politeness (Hernndez Flores 2006; Lorenzo-Dus
2007; Blas Arroyo forth).
The aim of this paper is to examine rude and impolite language in different talk shows
broadcast in Spain. On the one hand, the types of impoliteness present in these exploitative
chat shows are analysed. On the other hand the linguistic strategies used by the interactants to
put those types of impoliteness into practice are described. Both the linguistic and extralinguistic elements are taken into consideration. As a result of this study, the way the
participants in these TV-programmes construct and renegotiate their face-needs are
described.
In the analysis two types of impoliteness are identified: impoliteness due to threats to the face
of participants and impoliteness caused by a fault in the normal rules of politeness expected
from the situation (cf. Bernal 2007). As we shall demonstrate, there are some instances in
which the participants go beyond the accepted social conventions, leading even into a
breakdown in the debate. These interactions are characterised by a clearly high aggressive
load, which is received as such by the interactants. To support our findings a questionnaire
was distributed among speakers of peninsular Spanish. The respondants notice impoliteness
devices and break of politeness rules.
References
Bernal Linnersand, M. (2007) Categorizacin sociopragmtica de la cortesa y de la
descortesa. Un estudio de la conversacin coloquial espaola. Doctoral thesis.
Stockholm university. Gteborg: Intellecta Docusys AB.
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-6758
Blas Arroyo, J. L. (forth.) (Des)cortesa en los discursos mediticos. In Actas del IV
Coloquio del Programa EDICE, Rom 22-26 September 2008.
Culpeper, J. (2005) Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The
Weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research 1. 35-72.
Hernndez Flores, N. (2006) Actividades de autoimagen, cortesa y descortesa: tipos de
actividades de imagen en un debate televisivo. In J. L. Blas Arroyo et al. (eds.),
Discurso y Sociedad: contribuciones al estudio de la lengua en contexto social.
Castelln: Universitat Jaume I. 637-648.
Hernndez Flores, N. (2008) Communicative and social meaning in a television panel
discussion Pragmatics 18:4.
Ilie, C. (2001) Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics
33: 209-254.
Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
1. Positive politeness
They do not try to understand their teachers behaviour and their generally
understood needs and plans.
They often treat the teachers as their opponents whose image may be manipulated.
2. Negative politeness
They do not avoid face-threatening acts, just the opposite they often try to
discredit the teachers.
3. Off-record politeness
In their comments the students are, in general, direct and explicit in judging the
teachers.
If politeness is understood as minimizing the expression of impolite beliefs, the greater part
of the discussion in the students forum is to a great extent impolite. All the maxims of the
Polite Principle are flouted there.
Neg.
2 p. Fut.
Interrogative marker
nd
For Kant politeness is one double delusion, delusion of second rank: it makes the illusion to be pure illusion,
while in fact in reality it is something real and as such affects something real (Kant 1798, 45)
2
Ambiguity of politeness: too much politeness is considered as dishonest and flattering and too little - as antisocial and disrespectful. (Ehrhardt 2002: 31)
3
Goffman 1971, 17.
2.
3.
What are the NNES reactions to the rapport management strategies used by VPOs?
This paper, reporting on work in progress, offers a perspective on issues such as these.
Observable qualitative issues of topic and the development of intimacy begin to explicate the
nature of the pick-up community and PUA practice.
References
Clark, H.H. (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Culpeper, J. (2005) Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest
link. Journal of Politeness Research. 1 (1): 35-72.
Davies, B.L., Merrison A.J., Goddard, A. (2007) Institutional apologies in UK higher
education: Getting back into the black before going into the red. Journal of Politeness
Research. 3 (1): 39-63.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2006) Politeness in small shops in France. Journal of Politeness
Research. 2 (1): 79-103.
Lave, J. & Wenger, . (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) (2000) Culturally speaking managing rapport through talk across
cultures. London: Continuum. 11-46.
Svennevig, J. (1999) Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A study of initial interactions.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Wenger, . (1998) Communities of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Insincere apologies for trivial offences
Sandra Harrison, Coventry University, U.K.
The apology is of central interest in the field of politeness, involving participants in resolving
interactional problems: it is perhaps the example par excellence of politeness at work
(Grainger and Harris 2007:1). This paper seeks to extend our understanding of apologies by
examining apology strategies in naturally-occurring email discussions.
Goffman in his seminal work on apologies in spoken language highlighted two significant
factors: evidence of regret on the part of the offender, and acknowledgement or acceptance
The patients prestige face and autonomy face are most frequently
threatened in the hospital situation.
References
Arundale, R.B. (2006) Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for
research on face, facework, and politeness. In: Journal of Politeness Research, 2 (193216).
Jakubowska, E. (2008) Cultural variability in face interpretation and management, a paper
presented during the 4th International Symposium on Politeness East Meets West,
Budapest, July 2-4, 2008.
Kienpointner, M. (1997) Varieties of rudeness: Types and functions of impolite utterances.
In: Functions of Language 4 (251-287).
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005) (Im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging
their bases and interrelationships. In: Journal of Politeness Research 1 (95-119).
Tracy, K. (2008) Reasonable Hostility: Situation-appropriate face-attack. In: Journal of
Politeness Research, 4 (169-191).
The present study takes as its point of departure Kaul de Marlangeons (2008a) typology of
verbal impoliteness in the Spanish-speaking cultures, and, using a corpus of English, attempts
to test its validity and/or application to the English-speaking cultures. Kaul de Marlangeons
([1992] 1995, 2003, 2005 a y b & 2008b) and Alba-Juezs (2000, 2006, 2007 & 2008) studies
on the nature of impoliteness are also taken into consideration as previous background
studies, as well as Culpepers (1996, 2005) and Kienpointners (1997) typologies of the
phenomenon, together with Bravos (1999, 2004 y 2005), Janney & Arndt (1993) and
Wierzbickas (2003) ideas and methodological observations.
In Kaul de Marlangeons typology, the different types of impolite acts in the Spanishspeaking culture share in common either the intention to be impolite or the absence thereof.
This common intention or lack of it is thought to be reflected and regulated by the culture in
question, and the types or classes of this theoretical construct constitute a group of choices
made by the speakers in order to manifest their rude or impolite behaviour. The main aim of
such a typology was to find a taxonomy that would focus on the differences regarding
impolite attitudes and behaviour within and along an impoliteness continuum.
On the basis of the above-mentioned background work, we intend to propose a typology of
impoliteness for the English-speaking culture that allows for its comparison and contrast with
its Spanish-speaking counterpart. The results obtained so far make us feel inclined to argue in
favor of the existence of more similarities than differences between the two cultures under
scrutiny.
Self-enhancement vs. self-effacement and impoliteness vs. politeness
Xiuhua Ke, University of Western Ontario, Canada
According to Ting-Toomey (1999), self-enhancement, as a communication style, values the
importance of boasting about ones accomplishments and abilities; whereas, self-effacement
style, emphasizes the importance of humbling ones effort or performance. Spencer-Oatey
(2008) maintains these two norms may link with participants beliefs and values because
people may develop strong views as to which principle is impolite or polite on which
communicative occasions; whether participants should or should not boast or be self-effacing
in given contexts. Hence, she calls these two principles value-laden norms because the
evaluative element makes the norms sensitive to rapport management.
In intercultural communication among university students and faculty, conflicts and
misunderstandings can result in serious problems due to different beliefs and values on these
principles held by individuals from different sociocultural backgrounds. One communication
style viewed as polite by some individuals may be seen as impolite or even rude by others.
Interlocutors may make evaluative judgments and develop negative attitudes toward those
holding opposite views. This can have serious interactional consequences, a compelling issue
that begs more research.
This qualitative study has thus been projected to explore how and to what extent peoples
beliefs and values influence their choice of self-enhancement or self-effacement as
communication style in different contexts, and how their beliefs and values shape their views
on politeness and impoliteness. Research participants are university students and faculty from
diverse sociocultural backgrounds. Drawing from Gees (2005) theory and methodology of
the target (Is the act targeted or not, is it targeted against individuals or groups, is
the hearer also the target? etc)
(ii)
the audience (Is there an audience or not?)
(iii) the background assumptions (value judgements, prejudice, stereotypes, etc.)
(iv)
the manner (repetition, loudness; direct or indirect performance of aggressive acts)
(v)
use of conventional or non-conventional means of aggression
(vi)
truth or falsity of a statement (nothing hurts like the truth vs. defamation, libel,
slander)
(vii) direct performance vs. omission of an act (insults vs. acts of disrespect, aggressive
silence, etc.)
(viii) the nature of the relationship between aggressor and target (symmetric or
asymmetric)
The rederijkers, poets and playwrights who dominated cultural life in the sixteenth-century
Low Countries, handed down to us an affluent reservoir of resourcefully invented and
ingeniously designed strong language. As playwrights, they appear to have taken much
pleasure in conceiving occasions for their characters to engage in long-lasting and sometimes
elaborate exchanges of insults and threats. Verbal dueling of devilish sinneken-couples spice
up the dramatized debates between allegorical characters in the spelen van sinne (morality
plays), while in farces even the slightest upset can arouse the characters to vocalize fanciful
and highly stylized blasphemy, name-calling, and intimidation.
In my paper, I will demonstrate the rederijkers design and furnishing of violent farce
dialogue, and I will show how the verbal interaction of the characters often literally involves
brutal facework, expressing the participants intention to maltreat each others noses, eyes,
and mouths. I will argue that in the rederijkers penchant for strong language we can
distinguish the aesthetics of what Mikhail Bakhtin, in his renowned Rabelais-study, called
grotesque realism. I intend to discuss how the grotesque vocabulary and imagery expressed
and developed in rederijkers farce writing and in other texts (and pictorial art) may have
been a cultural countermovement that co-evolved with an increasing oversensitiveness in
society to (potential) offense much like it is the case in the present-day Netherlands, for that
matter.
Impoliteness strategies in negotiating power in broadcast political interview
Svetlana Kucherenko, Loughborough University, U.K.
This paper reports on a section of my research project into the workings of power within
broadcast media discourse in British and Russian cultures. The following research question
will be addressed in the paper: to what extent are impoliteness and rudeness a feature of
power relations between interviewers and interviewees in British and Russian political
interviews. In addressing that question I analyse excerpts from the BBC discussion and news
programmes HARDtalk, Straight Talk, Newsnight, Question Time and Russian TV
programmes of a like genre and format. Methodologically, my research is based on DA, CDA
and CA with the general principal of priotarising micro-analysis to explain macro-issues.
My research is informed by scholarship on power, media discourse, impoliteness and
rudeness studies. In analysing impoliteness I draw on Culpepers definition of it and his
taxonomy of impoliteness strategies (Culpeper 1996, 2005, 2008); theories that address
power as dynamic, relational, contextually-expressed, complex and contestable; and studies
of power that propose that it is related to conflict, confrontation, disagreement, asymmetry,
control, manipulation, dominance, rudeness, and impoliteness (Hutchby 1996; Locher 2004;
Limberg 2008; Thornborrow 2004; Wartenberg 1990; Watts 1991, 2003).
On the basis of the scholarship, my claim is that power, being a multi-dimensional
phenomenon, should be analysed alongside several dimensions simultaneously and can be
explained better by characterising it through its contextual variants such as conflict,
confrontation, asymmetry, impoliteness, etc. I argue that relations between power and its
contextual variants are similar to that between an abstract unit like a phoneme and its
realization through allophones. I support this by showing how interviewers and interviewees
use culture-specific impoliteness strategies in their power game in broadcast political
interview.
References
Culpeper, J. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3), 349
367.
Culpeper, J. et al. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and
prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10-11), 1545 1579.
Culpeper, J. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In Bousfield, D.
& Locher, M. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in
Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 155 180.
Hutchby, I. 1996. Confrontation Talk. Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio.
Mahwah, N.J. : Erlbaum.
Limberg, H. 2008. Threats in conflict talk: impoliteness and manipulation. In Bousfield, D. &
Locher, M. (eds.) Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory
and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.17 44.
Locher, M. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreement in Oral Communication.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thornborrow, J. 2002. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse.
Harlow: Longman.
Wartenberg, Th. 1990. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Watts, R. 1991. Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
_______. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pragmatic transfer in L2 comprehension, production and learning: the role of the
teacher
Svetlana Kurtes, University of Cambridge, U.K.
The paper will briefly address the question of pragmatic transfer in the context of foreign
language learning and teaching and suggest possible solutions concerning its didacticisation.
By pragmatic transfer we shall assume any carryover of pragmatic knowledge from one
culture to another in situations of intercultural communication (cf. Zegarac & Pennington
2000: 165). From the pedagogical point of view, however, it can be defined as the influence
exerted by learners pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their
comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information (Kasper 1992: 207).
Language teaching methodologies are increasingly acknowledging the fact that language
learners, regardless of their language proficiency, need to develop the right level of
sophistication not only in their linguistic competences, but also in the socio-pragmatic and
intercultural competences, in order to successfully accomplish L2 communicative goals and
intentions.
The teachers role in the process is critical and needs to be clearly defined. By promoting
his/her students L2 cultural fluency, s/he does not impose any specific cultural norms and
values, nor does s/he enforce any particular standard of behaviour (cf. Thomas 1983: 96).
Rather, it is the teachers job to equip the student to express her/himself in exactly the way
s/he chooses to do so rudely, tactfully, or in an elaborately polite manner. What we want to
prevent is her/his being unintentionally rude or subservient (Thomas 1983: 96). In other
(2)
a.
non taboo
b.
non taboo
taboo
d.
taboo
(3)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
(object)
(by-phrase)
(locative)
(possessive)
(prepositional)
(4)
The question then is how this syntactic activity comes about: purely collocational,
semantically, or morphosyntactically. We show that the syntactic activity comes about by the
interaction with the internal structure of taboo items. We will argue that taboo items encode
their taboo nature not just lexically but also by a feature mismatch. The features used in
Dutch are can be number, gender, etc. While the Dutch words in (1) bal zak etc are nonneuters internally and carry in these cases an overt non-neuter inflection on the determiner
ene, they saturate externally a neuter pronoun position iets. Because of its reduced
grammatical features, English uses categorial features to realize a feature clash, as in (4),
where fuck all is internally verbal because of the over object all, while it saturates at the
sentential level a nominal phrase nothing. We will show these features mismatches are
systematical in a variety of languages, e.g. the famous cet idiot de Jean construction,
discussed in Milner 1978, Ruwet 1982, Kayne 1994. In all these cases there is a feature
mismatch as well. The question is therefore why. Is it an arbitrary sign of taboo or does the
construction encode its taboo nature? In order to answer this question we present two
anthropological theories of taboo: the first describes taboo as arising from a combination of
two conflicting features (both a and a), Frazer 1890, Freud 1912, the other as an
impossibility of classification (neither a nor a), Leach (1994). We argue that it is the first
theory that gives the desirable parallel. Finally we go into the formal representation of taboo.
The question is whether the taboo-property is a syntactic feature itself, like [human],
[animate], or an operator, to be compared with WH, Focus, High-degree etc. I will propose
that that cases of 'taboo' systematically project on a mismatches in a spec-head configuration,
formally (5).
(5)
[spec head
|
|
lex1 lex2
|
|
a -a
The lexemes lex1 and lex2 are in a specifier head configuration where they should agree but
where they display a mismatch of features (gender mismatches, categorial mismatches, etc.).
Under the assumption that spec-head agreement is syntactically absolute, however, we
postulate a hidden operator, T, which flips features, formally, T(a)=-a. The apparent
mismatch is then resolved by the presence of the covert T-operator. This yields the formal
configuration in ().
(6)
[spec
head
This paper focuses on one specific area of natural data in which these two phenomena, selfpoliteness and impoliteness to other, are successfully combined in a single utterance or
exchange. The source of the data is negative feedback and responses to this feedback, given
after online transactions via eBay, one of the leading Internet shops. I would like to highlight
various impoliteness strategies and tactics, which at the same time display numerous features
of self-politeness, and propose a classification of the examples. As a conclusion, I would like
to discuss two problems: firstly, how the (im)politeness of an utterance ties up with its
directness or indirectness, and secondly, the importance and specificity of context in the
interpretation of an utterance as (im)polite. I discuss examples such as the following:
A. Buyer: [the sellers] [d]o not correspond to email through ebay. No insruction unotainable web
sight 4
Seller (16-Nov-08 03:34): Instructions were on product & emailed & I answered you[r] badly
worded emails! SAD!
B. Buyer: asked for black got pink, out of shape, do not match display photo
Seller (24-Jun-08 19:38): If there's an error, logical step is to contact seller when we can sort it
out.
C. Buyer: BEWARE!! SENT WRONG DRESS, IGNORED 99% EMAILS, LIED, RUDE STILL
OWES ME MONEY!!
Seller (17-Nov-08 11:19): get the refund as paypal, but you didn't post back dress, want to keep it
arenu
Politeness or impoliteness - the pragmatic study of the address term ayi (aunt) in
Shanghai Dialect
Zhang Xiao Ming, Donghua University of Shanghai, China
Theories of politeness formulated by Western theoreticians like Lakoff (1973), Brown and
Lecinson (1978) and Leech (1983) are, implicitly or explicitly, claimed to be universal across
languages and cultures. While language is closely related to culture, these theories are
sometimes difficult to explain the phenomena in eastern countries, for example, in China.
Thus, eastern scholars like Gu (1990), formulated his politeness theorydistilled from
millennias Chinese cultural traditionMaxim of Self-denigration. According to Gu, the
addressers always elevate their addressees and denigrated themselves.
Kinship terms are commonly used to address people even strangers in China. It is a good way
to show your respect and your politeness. ayi(aunt) is a very common address term in
Shanghai dialect, where it can both be a person deixis and social deixis. According to Gu,
ayi(aunt),which is commonly used to address females whose age is above 20, is a polite
way to show your respect to the addressees, who is elder than you. While statistics of the
questionnaire data indicate that politeness in Chinese always seems on the move. Some
women, esp. whose age range from 20 to 35, are unwilling to be addressed by ayi (aunt).
In their opinion, jiejie (sister) would be more polite than ayi(aunt) because they may feel
4
The spelling and grammar in the examples are original and unchanged.